70-200 VRI or a Lot of Gear...? Which to buy!

[D-B-J]

If you already have the range and it sits in your bag what's the point?

Why not take your bag and spend the money on going somewhere that's a great place to shoot and make some memories?

The 'real world' after all is sometimes a harsh mistress, it may be some time before you can get the chance to break away again.

I just don't have the time, currently.

AHH! I can't decide. I took out my 80-200 today for the first time in forever... I just don't use it a lot lately. I have a feeling I'll be using my 85 and 50 for portraiture a lot more than my 80-200 or 70-200 (if I were to upgrade).

 

[manaheim]

Who uses an 80-200 to do landscapes? That's just weird.

 

[D-B-J]

Who uses an 80-200 to do landscapes? That's just weird.

I was wondering the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

If you already have the range and it sits in your bag what's the point?

Why not take your bag and spend the money on going somewhere that's a great place to shoot and make some memories?

The 'real world' after all is sometimes a harsh mistress, it may be some time before you can get the chance to break away again.

I just don't have the time, currently.

AHH! I can't decide. I took out my 80-200 today for the first time in forever... I just don't use it a lot lately. I have a feeling I'll be using my 85 and 50 for portraiture a lot more than my 80-200 or 70-200 (if I were to upgrade).

That you do not use your current 80-200 a lot is telling...telling you that you don't need what it offers you with much frequency. Perhaps it's a "sometimes kind of lens"? Something you do not NEED, constantly, but wish to keep in your gear set? Like for example, we don;t usually NEED a first-aid kit, and we don't NEED all 549 cable channels...but,uh....well, you know.

Then again, maybe it's useless, almost worthless dead weight, for you, at this time. Maybe you could eliminate it, and be perfectly happy with something MUCH smaller, and lighter. Maybe it's a case of the lens being too darned BIG and heavy, for the way you are shooting these days? Any 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 lens is BIG, highly visible, and you KNOW when you have it with you. Maybe an older lens, smaller, like 80-200 f/4 Ai-S for $100 used, would substitute; maybe the 70-300 f/4.5~5,.6 AF-S VR-G would do; optically, I think the new 70-300 VR might be as good as the old 80-200's at it's available f/stops, which are admittedly slower, but it is a modern lens, designed in the high-MP era, the digital era...

I don;t know what you shoot, or how you carry your gear, but an 80-200 is so BIG that it tends to "hog the body", or "tie up a whole body", unless you have an awesome carrying system. Maybe that's really the issue. Orrrr maybe you just do not "see" in telephoto all that much. I do...I do not try to make many wide-angle pictures, so for me the longer lenses are more-useful, whereas if you're into landscaping, many people use wider lenses much of the time. But hey, if it ain't working, fix it. That's the olde timey saying,right???

I am not kidding about the 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S as a substitute zoom. You can need or want a 70-200 or 80-200 for various reasons: AF speed, f/stop speed, VR or IS, etc. if you focus slower, or do not need constant AF, or work tripod mounted or in live view, a quality manual focus lens like the 80-200/4 AiS is a viable option, and they are literally, like $100 these days.

 

[D-B-J]

If you already have the range and it sits in your bag what's the point?

Why not take your bag and spend the money on going somewhere that's a great place to shoot and make some memories?

The 'real world' after all is sometimes a harsh mistress, it may be some time before you can get the chance to break away again.

I just don't have the time, currently.

AHH! I can't decide. I took out my 80-200 today for the first time in forever... I just don't use it a lot lately. I have a feeling I'll be using my 85 and 50 for portraiture a lot more than my 80-200 or 70-200 (if I were to upgrade).

That you do not use your current 80-200 a lot is telling...telling you that you don't need what it offers you with much frequency. Perhaps it's a "sometimes kind of lens"? Something you do not NEED, constantly, but wish to keep in your gear set? Like for example, we don;t usually NEED a first-aid kit, and we don't NEED all 549 cable channels...but,uh....well, you know.

Then again, maybe it's useless, almost worthless dead weight, for you, at this time. Maybe you could eliminate it, and be perfectly happy with something MUCH smaller, and lighter. Maybe it's a case of the lens being too darned BIG and heavy, for the way you are shooting these days? Any 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 lens is BIG, highly visible, and you KNOW when you have it with you. Maybe an older lens, smaller, like 80-200 f/34 Ai-S for $100 used, would substitute; maybe the 70-300 f/4.5~5,.6 AF-S VR-G would do; optically, I think the new 70-300 VR might be as good as the old 80-200's at it's available f/stops, which are admittedly slower, but it is a modern lens, designed in the high-MP era, the digital era...

I don;t know what you shoot, or how you carry your gear, but an 80-200 is so BIG that it tends to "hog the body", or "tie up a whole body", unless you have an awesome carrying system. Maybe that's really the issue. Orrrr maybe you just do not "see" in telephoto all that much. I do...I do not try to make many wide-angle pictures, so for me the longer lenses are more-useful, whereas if you're into landscaping, many people use wider lenses much of the time. But hey, if it ain't working, fix it. That's the olde timey saying,right???

That just about sums up what's been running through my mind lately. I just don't use it often. I often leave it at home when I go hiking and shooting scapes.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I LOVED the 70-200 VR-I for a full ten years. But since I bought the 70-300 AF-S VR-G, I carry THAT lens, and it FITS INTO a water-bottle slot on a fanny pack I got. The other water bottle slot on the opposite side can carry TWO smaller primes, on lens caps that are taped together back-to-back. In the center, I can put a BIG camera body and smallish lens.

The 70-200 is a PITA lens to carry on longer hikes, but it's GREAT at the ocean shores, or for pictures of people you meet along the way and do quick sessions with. But the 70-300 is sooooooooooo much EASIER to carry. The 70-200 needs the factory-supplied lens case, or to be in a backpack, or in a photo vest. But...it's too BIG for may photo vest pockets, so it's gotta be either worn in the case, or in a belt case, or in the back pocket of the vest. OR--allowed to "hog a body" and be carried on a camera.

Your "carrying system" can greatly influence what works best. Maybe you need to re-evaluate the multiple gear-carrying options that have developed these last 20 years.

 

[manaheim]

Yeah this seems like a no brainer. Don't spend $2500 on something you're not really going to use.

 

[D-B-J]

I LOVED the 70-200 VR-I for a full ten years. But since I bought the 70-300 AF-S VR-G, I carry THAT lens, and it FITS INTO a water-bottle slot on a fanny pack I got. The other water bottle slot on the opposite side can carry TWO smaller primes, on lens caps that are taped together back-to-back. In the center, I can put a BIG camera body and smallish lens.

The 70-200 is a PITA lens to carry on longer hikes, but it's GREAT at the ocean shores, or for pictures of people you meet along the way and do quick sessions with. But the 70-300 is sooooooooooo much EASIER to carry. The 70-200 needs the factory-supplied lens case, or to be in a backpack, or in a photo vest. But...it's too BIG for may photo vest pockets, so it's gotta be either worn in the case, or in a belt case, or in the back pocket of the vest. OR--allowed to "hog a body" and be carried on a camera.

Your "carrying system" can greatly influence what works best. Maybe you need to re-evaluate the multiple gear-carrying options that have developed these last 20 years.

I'm only 20! I haven't developed gear-carrying options since I was one!

Haha, thanks for the input Derrel.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit: whoops. You said "have developed," not that YOU have developed....

 

[astroNikon]

Do what Derrel says,
and give the 80-200 to Sharon ... and after 6 months if you haven't even thought about it ... well, I guess she wouldn't mind if you forgot about it too.

I use my 80-200 TONS for my kids sports ... I wish they made a 80-300/2.8 AFD

but if you aren't even using the 80-200, what makes you think you'll use the 70-200 ??
except as a new toy, I mean, new critical gear you'll find something to use it for ... like landscapes of far away mountain ranges.

 

[hamlet]

If you already own a 80-200 2.8D and you don't use it much then i don't know if the 70-200 is really a lens for you. I personally use my 70-200vrii for like 90% of my shots and its always with me when i'm going out to shoot. Just that sometimes you have to temper your excitement for new gear, bring your 80-200 with you more and more and see if you can keep using it for your shoots, then after a while buy the 70-200 if you find yourself using your 80-200 more, otherwise the 70-200 will also sit in your bag.

 

[Mike_E]

Hiking?

Man, if you're going to go hiking with a 70/80~200mm f2.8 then what you really need is a mule.



Or two donkeys.


Go, celebrate the close of one life and the beginning of another. Take your camera to record the celebration but not to be the reason for being anywhere.



There is a trap that we sometimes fall into in that we get so caught up in recording life that we forget to live.

So, go make some memories.

 

[TheFantasticG]

What wa or uwa do you currently have for landscapes?

I love shooting macro which is why I have two macro lenses. I just recently purchased a Tokina 11-16 2.8 II and have been using it quite a lot, especially for landscapes.

 

[bc_steve]

Who uses an 80-200 to do landscapes? That's just weird.

I was wondering the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me! (Sorry to hijack with my photos but I feel the need to defend myself!)


Sunrise at Bagan by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr


Sedona, Arizona by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr


Tawang Monastery, Arunachal Pradesh, India by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr


flaming mountains by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr

 

[manaheim]

huh. Who knew? Neat.

 

[D-B-J]

Welp... Today I hiked a mountain and photographed landscapes all day. It's decided. SB910, pocketwizard, 50mm 1.8G, and some more filters. The 80-200 will do for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk